Upload & Sell: On
| p.3 #17 · Photography at Art Fair - Legal/Moral question |
Craig Gillette wrote:
Pay attention. It can't be any simpler than this. A property owner can control activities on his property. It's that simple. "Public property" is not yours. The city (county, state, federal government) can rent out the park, the street, the gazebo, the rec center, the playing field, the Lincoln Bedroom, for private activities. It happens all the time. The person renting the space can choose to allow or restrict entrance, fees, activities, etc., etc.
Here's a simple example. L.A. County owns the Hollywood Bowl. They allow tourists to enter it at various times, for free. Just park, get out of the car and walk right in. However, at some point on the day of an event, control is transferred, legally, by lease or whatever, to a producer, the L.A. Phil, etc. That organization sets it's own policies, rules, admissions fees, terms of admission, etc. Now you can't drive up and park without paying, can't waltz in without paying. And they can be very serious about photography, especially if you make noise, fire flashes, etc.
Ever seen a location shoot for a movie or TV program? These are shot on public property all the time. You can shoot from the outside in (and they may well try to block or obscure viewing angles, etc.,) but try to get into "their" area, you will easily find out the legal authority they have to control entry, photography, etc.
Most of these little local art shows probably don't even consider controlling photography but that's not the same as suggesting they don't have the right to do so. Sports leagues, etc., do it all the time to restrict outside commercial shooters who could cut into the revenue stream.
Pay attention, eh? How about you pay attention to the details of the discussion? Your examples are nearly irrelevant to the discussion at hand... You could use a lesson in manners, too. This has been a pretty good exchange IMHO (except your post).
Here's how it nets out (in my opinion):
Can you trademark a tree so that no-one is allowed to photograph it? No. There is no original act of creation, and the visage of the tree is ever-changing. I can't imagine it would stand up in court.
Can the owner of private property limit photography on their property? Yes. This is probably the actual limitation that is trying to be enforced for CypressGate, not trademark/copyright. Trademark/copyright just sounds more official...
Can the owner of private property limit photography of something on their property taken off their property? No. (with possible exceptions around invasion of privacy, etc.)
Can someone leasing a public venue (e.g. stadium, et. al) limit use of photographic equipment? Yes, with proper notification, via tickets, signs, etc. Given that every phone on the planet seems to have a damn decent camera, this seems a little useless.
Can the "owner" of a booth on public property (leased or not) at an event where there are no tickets, etc. conferring
a limitation on photography demand that someone refrain from taking photos? No, unless those photos are exclusively for copying their copyrighted work. Creative photography (or frankly just snapshots) that happens to include their work aren't protected due to Fair Use/Derivative Work.